ADELINO H. LEDESMA V. HON. RAFAEL C.

CLIMACO
G.R. No. L- 23815 (June 28, 1974)

Facts:

Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending in the sala
of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the
Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a
motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge denied him and
also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a
motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion.
So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.

Issue: 

Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of the petitioner is a
grave abuse of discretion?

Ruling:

No, Ledesma’s withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty required of
the legal profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is burdened with
conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A
lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the administration
of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without pay should not diminish the lawyer's
zeal.

Ratio:

“The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges, or other
officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section 32
Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court]. The
lawyer involved not being among them, remained as counsel of record since he did not file a
motion to withdraw as defendant-appellant’s counsel after his appointment as Register of Deeds.
Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new counsel for the defendant-
appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
             To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer
may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of an
accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the highest
importance, and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully informed
of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them (People vs. Holgado, L-2809,
March 22, 1950)
                The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with a counsel de
officio for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muñoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)